Should the United States have the right to execute War on Terrorism POW's?

[Alexander's Horse]

Originally posted by Chris 62

The talk of Martyrs is over-rated, as far as I can see, no Martyr outside of Jesus has made any real impact on history.

I take it from this that you haven't read much history. OBL is far more potent dead than alive.

Typical American - knows more about Monica Lewinsky's dresses than history

[Chris 62]

Originally posted by Alexander's Horse
I take it from this that you haven't read much history. OBL is far more potent dead than alive.

Says who?
Prove that assinine statement.
Forget it, you can't Horsie, becasue you know I'm right.

Typical American - knows more about Monica Lewinsky's dresses than history

Minor league troll, you can do better.

[Alexander's Horse]

Hey I have to throw a few cheap shots in - you do

[Tingkai]

Originally posted by DanS
But it does raise the question of whether all of the Defense Department's documents are going to be subject to discovery. This is the kind of absurdity that the US would like to avoid.

"If the American people are willing to kill innocent Afghani civilians in their pursuit of Bin Laden, then why would they care if an Afghani was wrongly convicted of being a terrorist? As many Americans have written on these boards, the Afghanis are guilty and deserve to die. Why bother with a trial when you "know" they are guilty."

Who are these "many Americans... on these boards?" Please cite me what they have said.

Quote from MTG:
"Yes, let's expose everything to everyone, to "prove" to a few simpering do-nothings that the guilty really are guilty."

Based on what you, MTG and Cothers have written, I can imagine the military tribunal will work like this:

Prosecutor: We have solid evidence that the guilty party is guilty.
Defence: what is the evidence?
Prosecutor: That's top secret. If we disclosed that information it would expose our secret sources to the guilty party who is a known terrorist.
Defence: But how do we know what you say is true?
Prosecutor: The US government would never lie.
Judge: The evidence is clear. The guilty party is an Arab with a beard who was found in a cave in Afghanistan. The prosecution's secret evidence shows this man is a high ranking taliban official, which of course he denies, but naturally he would. Obviously, the guilty party is guilty. Next.

[Alexander's Horse]

This Geneva Convention doesn't apply argument is also bollocks. Even if they aren't covered by the letter of the agreement, the Geneva Convention sets standards and norms which apply to prisoners of armed conflict regardless.

[Dr. Nick]

Martyrs? Che Guevara was also a martyr... and the 70ist guerrilla movements across Latin America were sparked from the admiration in his martyrdom. A lot of people admired him for his fight for his beliefs in a time where dictatorships were commonplace in latin America.

The Mahdi wasn't a martyr AFAIK. He simply died of old age. He was worshipped by the Sudanese in Khartoum, but he wasn't a martyr per se.

[Frodo]

This is not a nationalist issue, so enough of the Americans vs. Euros nonsense. I'm an American.

Anyway, if we're only trying Al Qaeda members and not Taliban fighters, then what are we trying them for? Acts of terrorism? Or for simply being part of a terrorist organization? I mean, what has the average Al Qaeda member done that's a serious crime? Most of these guys probably weren't involved in anything big. As far as I know, that's how terrorist organizations work. It's like an assembly line. Everyone does one little thing, and no one really knows what anyone else is doing.

The question in the thread title seems kind of pointless because the US isn't going to execute the POWs, since they're POWs, and probably isn't going to find anything extreme enough to call for the execution of any Al Qaeda members except for maybe the grand poobahs. How many thousands of prisoners are there, anyway? What are they going to do, shoot them all? Dump their bodies in a big pit and cover it with a tarp?

And I thought the NA was handling, or mishandling these guys, not the US. Aren't the NA the ones imprisoning them and carting them around in boxes until they suffocate and die?

It's interesting to note how the left, regardless of what you say, MtG, did actually protest for years about the injustice of the Taliban and their opression of women and so on (haven't you been reading your Ms. Magazine?). Now they're protesting the mistreatment of the Taliban.

The leftist logic is like this: it doesn't matter who is being oppressed, or who oppressed who first. Opression is wrong. This is why the left may seem to have made a 180 degree turn. It's because the tables have been turned.

Anyway, this will only be an issue when, or if, we actually catch bin Laden and his fellow higher-ups. Until then, as you said, we're just talking about a hypothetical nothing.

[Frodo]

Oh, by the way, why would the US government purposely just kill Al Qaeda members after holding mock military tribunals? What do they get out of it? I'm trying to understand the motive here. If the prosecutors really had no evidence, why would they try to convict the accused anyway? Am I just being naive here? You could say that they would do it for the benefit of the pubic, sating the thirst for vengeance and all that, but are they really so stupid as to think that if they sentence Muslims to death in private courts without presenting any evidence to the public, that this will not give a horrible momentum to the vendetta against America?

[Lefty Scaevola]

Originally posted by Frodo
I'm confused. What are we trying them for? And who exactly are we trying?
...Are we talking about Al Qaeda members here? .... So if they are criminals, what is their crime?

Piracy (freebooting) would cover just about all of them. There are a non goverment organization, which by their own declarations datting from 1996, as well as by their actions, have been waging war against foreign goverments (not as rebels against their own government), the very definition of piracy. All its members who in any signigicant support its warfare would fall under piracy. Any who could tied to specific attackss would face more serious terroism charges. Governments very jealously guard their perogative to wage war from any private enterprise. Piracy was about the the first international crime.

[DinoDoc]

I think I'm on several ignore lists.

Originally posted by Alexander's Horse
Another very good point - which suggests the International Court of Justice in the Hague would be a better option for the trials. It would have a lot more international credibility.

1) The ICJ doesn't have jurisdiction in this matter. If thier absolutely must be an international tribunal it would have to be established by the UN Security Council.

2) You've yet to deal with the objection I raised earlier about the realistic ability of an international court to deal with the shear number of possible defendents.

3) How do you propose the US deal with the problem of sharing intelligence intercepts with non-American personel in an international court in the midst of an ongoing conflict?

4) Why doesn't a Nation-State's right to self-defense carry with it the expectation that it will be able to try the war crimes that come out of attacks upon its territory and citizens?

El Awrence: Che's appeal is mostly based on the myths that over inflated both his accomplishments & competence.

[Lefty Scaevola]

I, personally, would prefer an international tribunnal. I would love to have Europe and others footing a large share of the enormous costs of the prosecutions and courts

[Tingkai]

Re: I think I'm on several ignore lists.

Originally posted by DinoDoc

Che appeal is most based on the myths that over inflated both his accomplishments & competence.

You're right. Just goes to show the power of a "martyr's" death.

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by Alexander's Horse
This Geneva Convention doesn't apply argument is also bollocks. Even if they aren't covered by the letter of the agreement, the Geneva Convention sets standards and norms which apply to prisoners of armed conflict regardless.

Yes, the Geneva convention specifically distinguishes spies, saboteurs and mercenaries from combatants entitled to protection and POW status under the convention.

Spies and saboteurs have no rights, they may in fact be summarily executed. IIRC, the limits to a mercenary's rights are that the embassy of the mercenary's home country be notified of his fate.

BTW - name one trial where the Department of Defense was able to "protect" it's sources?

Originally posted by Tingkai
You're right. Just goes to show the power of a "martyr's" death.

Che was and is more a fashion statement than a martyr. Latinamerican revolutionary groups have always been able to build up a myth around someone, but neither Marti, Zapata, or Che are much more than propaganda symbols. All were more effective and more of a threat alive, rather than dead.

Originally posted by Frodo
Anyway, if we're only trying Al Qaeda members and not Taliban fighters, then what are we trying them for? Acts of terrorism? Or for simply being part of a terrorist organization? I mean, what has the average Al Qaeda member done that's a serious crime? Most of these guys probably weren't involved in anything big. As far as I know, that's how terrorist organizations work. It's like an assembly line. Everyone does one little thing, and no one really knows what anyone else is doing.

So far, we're not trying anyone, except Moussaoui (sp?) here. We're holding both Taleban and al Qaeda, as prisoners, and interrogating them to get intel information - that's their value. Putting together a more complete understanding of the al Qaeda hierarchy, other facilities outside Afghanistan, info about people who went into "martyrdom" training, etc. Those who were in leadership roles can be charged with conspiracy, and with supporting a terrorist organization.

The question in the thread title seems kind of pointless because the US isn't going to execute the POWs, since they're POWs, and probably isn't going to find anything extreme enough to call for the execution of any Al Qaeda members except for maybe the grand poobahs.

There may be a few dozen - those who trained or organized "martyrdom" activities or personnel can be sentenced to death under conspiracy to commit terrorist acts statutes.

How many thousands of prisoners are there, anyway? What are they going to do, shoot them all? Dump their bodies in a big pit and cover it with a tarp?

I'm not sure anyone has an accurate count, but the new government may do something close to that with most of the foreign prisoners - or just slowly rot them to death in Afghan jails.

And I thought the NA was handling, or mishandling these guys, not the US. Aren't the NA the ones imprisoning them and carting them around in boxes until they suffocate and die?

On the latter question, yep, that's our buddies in the NA. They didn't get much better treatment when their people were captured, and they have long memories for that kind of stuff. We are jointly processing prisoners, though - attempting to ID them in case we find any leaders trying to pass off as regular fighters, and segregating for transfer to US custody anyone identified or suspected of having any knowledge or intel value.

It's interesting to note how the left, regardless of what you say, MtG, did actually protest for years about the injustice of the Taliban and their opression of women and so on (haven't you been reading your Ms. Magazine?). Now they're protesting the mistreatment of the Taliban.

Luckily, it'll be with the same effect. I know the left protests almost everything, but I just haven't been impressed by a bunch of people who's basic response is "let's write an article and tell each other how bad we feel about this" or "let's write a letter of protest to the UN" - now organizations like RAWA who actually take risks to actually do something about it, I have a lot of respect for. But people who simply whine and do nothing don't make it for me.

The leftist logic is like this: it doesn't matter who is being oppressed, or who oppressed who first. Opression is wrong. This is why the left may seem to have made a 180 degree turn. It's because the tables have been turned.

Yeah - which is why good-intentioned but simpering leftists always get screwed by right-wingers or more radical leftists. And they don't realize that when dealing with the al Qaedas and Talebans of the world, you can't just sit down with them and say "gee, you should really treat everyone nicer, how about a big group hug" and get anywhere.

[Roland]

Lefty:

"Governments very jealously guard their perogative to wage war from any private enterprise."

Ius ad bellum ended in 1945. Actually, it ended retroactively, at least for Germany and Japan...

Mike:

"Yes, the Geneva convention specifically distinguishes spies, saboteurs and mercenaries from combatants entitled to protection and POW status under the convention.... the limits to a mercenary's rights are that the embassy of the mercenary's home country be notified of his fate."

AFAIK the combatant status of mercenaries is a disputed matter*, and not automatically related to the ban on using mercenaries. Also I doubt that Al Queda guys meet the definition of mercenaries, which is usually related to material gain.

* For a serious argument, I'd have to read up A. Cassese, "Mercenaries : Lawful Combatants or War Criminals ?", Zeitschrift für ausländisches öffentliches Recht und Völkerrecht, 1980, pp. 1-30. I don't think the 1989 International Convention against the Recruitment, Use, Financing and Training of Mercenaries changed anything significant there.

[Chris 62]

Originally posted by Tingkai
Just goes to show the power of a "martyr's" death.

No offense to this poster, but this proves nothing.

El mentions Che being an "inspiration", and inspiration for what?
To be seen on mugs and T-shirts?

What practical advantage was his "matyrdom"?

As I said last night, all this matyr talk is the bunk, anyone can see what following OBL's path brings:
In a few months what you have built for years will be torn apart, half the world will distrust your religion and nationality, and you will be hounded till your death.

Yes, I'm sure many will flock to this cause for more of the same.

Hey I have to throw a few cheap shots in - you do

Every chance I get!

The question in the thread title seems kind of pointless because the US isn't going to execute the POWs, since they're POWs, and probably isn't going to find anything extreme enough to call for the execution of any Al Qaeda members except for maybe the grand poobahs. How many thousands of prisoners are there, anyway? What are they going to do, shoot them all? Dump their bodies in a big pit and cover it with a tarp?

The thread was a fun troll by a fun troll guy.
Exactly how many prisoners does the US hold?
I only heard a total less then 200, most of them are in Afgan hands.

And I have a leagal question:

Have they (The prisoners) been given any status leagally as of yet?
Roland?
Lefty?
Could you guys help here?